Meds wrote:How many more $5M fuck ups do we have to tolerate from #23..

Gee, it might be worth waiting for Edler's cap hit to catch up to that figure (nevermind his salary, in October 2014 ) to start filling your boots with the whole "we paid $5m for this?!" routine.

Of course as you said yourself you've been on his case for years. I don't think his salary really matters to guys like you or Pauser. He can be an All Star, he can be the team's most productive defenseman, but as long as he blows his coverage, or turns over the puck to create a chance the other way every now and then, some posters will just keep bringing out the knives.

How many offensive defensemen in this league produce as much as Edler, are less prone to unsteadiness and don't make millions more than him? Maybe you'd prefer Dennis Wideman or James Wisniewski or Matt Carle?

When the game ended - the D pair on the ice was our most dependable of late.

Luongo rising up the goaltending stats chart!

Yup just give Ballard-Tanev 23 minutes per game now.

great play by Ballard on winner. Shows AV's faith in 3rd D pair w Ballard/Tanev on ice at end of OT

Its really nice to see the Ballard-Tanev combo have success. They have definately been earning their minutes with some very solid play. Nice to see part of our defensive committee step up when other members are having some issues finding their stride.

Lou pretty solid again, the goals were a touch weak though IMO although a fairly big portion of blame goes to the lackluster defensive effort in each case. Thankfully things came together after the Hanson goal and the lads started playing like we know they can.

Never mind Doc, he is struggling with my 'crow' typo. It's gonna hamstring D'OCD' for awhile. So you are gonna have to fend for yourself until D'OCD' manages to untangle himself from his latest repitition

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

damonberryman wrote:
No. You are not even close to being real. We won and outshot them bad.

Shots mean nothing when they aren't quality. Not saying that was the case tonight, just in general. Time and again this team puts up 30 shots on net but 25 of them are from outside with nobody around to create traffic, get a redirection, or put away a gimme rebound on the door step. Tonight Dubnyk was good and the Canucks were horrible on the PP and would probably like to have several do-overs on scoring chances where they just didn't life the puck.

The Sedins still look off, but they dominated Edmonton's top line over the last 2 periods.

Edmonton did not try any matchup changes through the last 2 periods - I assume it's because they lost Horcoff? Or, I'll go to my backup opinion, Edmonton will always be doomed if they continue to have boobs managing their team.

The problem I see with that analysis is that it ranks shots and scoring chances equally no matter where they are on the ice.

The correlation line is strongly biased in the 50/50 range but does not appear correct at the ends of the range. Something you'd expect from the talent differential between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines. It highlights the problems with Corsi and Fenwick when you get near the edges of the data.

As I suggested last year, integrate a GIS based system, something similar to the first graphic in your link but with a bit more contouring, and you can assign a ranking to both shots and chances. Add in charts for goaltender strength and weaknesses and you're really onto something. I've been doing this with a variety of mine data and then applying it to regional geological data to highlight areas as exploration targets. Psuedo neural net stuff.

The problem I see with that analysis is that it ranks shots and scoring chances equally no matter where they are on the ice.

The correlation line is strongly biased in the 50/50 range but does not appear correct at the ends of the range. Something you'd expect from the talent differential between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines. It highlights the problems with Corsi and Fenwick when you get near the edges of the data.

As I suggested last year, integrate a GIS based system, something similar to the first graphic in your link but with a bit more contouring, and you can assign a ranking to both shots and chances. Add in charts for goaltender strength and weaknesses and you're really onto something. I've been doing this with a variety of mine data and then applying it to regional geological data to highlight areas as exploration targets. Psuedo neural net stuff.

Rumsfeld wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (premature though it may be) that Schroeder is simply too small to be consistently effective in this league. He can skate, shoot and pass, but he's too easy to knock off the puck and can't drive wide on the faster NHL defencemen. He's too weak on the puck to be a bottom-six checker so I don't see where he'll fit in here long term.

If the kid was three inches taller he'd be a guaranteed top-sixer one day, but he's no St-Louis or Briere and he isn't gritty enough to be a Steve Sullivan. I like that he throws his little body around, but it ain't gonna happen.

That's certainly a premature conclusion, and probably the easier one to make than to say the kid is going to be a successful NHLer.

Being a small guy is certainly not a disadvantage in today's NHL, and as you pointed out, most NHL defencemen are too good to be able to drive wide around consistently.

I have no idea if Schroeder is going to have a NHL career. He still is raw in many respects, but he does seem to think the game well. He doesn't look as shell shocked as man rookies look (i.e. Zack Kassian last year), and for the most part seems confident and mentally ready to play at this level, which to me is a big positive. If he looked tentative out there, then yeah, I'd agree with you that he won't make it.

Most of the things I've heard about Schroeder through the years seem to be true:
- He looks really small out there.
- He's a quick, smooth skater.
- He's a two-way player. He plays both ends of the rink well, and importantly, is strong on the defensive side of the game.
- He seems to have good vision, awareness and anticipation of where the play is going, generally, although he does look lost in the offensive zone at times. Would be great if he could pot a goal in his Minnesota homecoming to get his confidence up.
- He is a hard worker. With his skill level, he needs to be.
- He was always reported as being a very strong (powerful) guy. Strength doesn't look like an issue (at this point).

One thing that has surprised me is that Schroeder has been pretty good along the boards. Hansen's goal last night wouldn't have happened without his work behind the net. Schroeder gets right in there, and several times has taken the puck away from much bigger defenders in tight.

Who knows what happens when Kesler is back, but early on this season, Schroeder's line has generated much more good than bad, which is more than can be said for the other two healthy centres not named Sedin.

People like to focus in on obvious things like size, but the game is much more that that. Aside from the obvious elite level little guys, there are regulary every day players (defencemen even) who are around his size (Derek Roy, Enstrom, Cammallerri, Versteeg, Timonen, Rafalski, Marchand, Desharnais, Ennis, Gerbe), so if he can think the game well, play responsible two way hockey, and work his ass off, things could work out for him.

Topper is bang on. Somehow scoring chances are blanketed in the baseball diamond shape that runs from goal posts to circles up through dots to to and then across. So all point shots are NOT scoring chances.

What the info does not do is account for position, or lack thereof, of all other players on the ice at that time.

A lot of these guys are trying to explain things from stats without a physical observation. It's junior analytics and while interesting it's not as advanced as they would like to believe. Take the numbers and explain what makes a good player with them and then show what the predictors are- that's where the value is.

Brick Top: Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.

I've seen some posters elsewhere make the claim that Schroeder is playing a drastically simplified game right now and that it's possible he's going to have to get more comfortable (and solidify a roster spot) in the NHL before he starts taking chances with the puck that would allow him to better display much high end skill.

I don't know if that's true or not - and if it is, I don't know if it's a good thing or not. I suppose it depends on when he takes those chances and how frequently they pan out as legitimate scoring opportunities.

Other than the fact that it's too early to write Schroeder off, what I've seen so far in this small sample size is very encouraging.

Over the years I've questioned whether Schroeder will ever be an effective NHL player with my primary concerns being: consistent effort, willingness to go to the tough areas, winning puck battles along the boards and being effective in his own end.

Skill wise, he's always had the potential to score at a high clip in a top 6 role with PP time. Whether he ever reaches his scoring potential or scores in the average top 6 range remains to be see.

Considering the approach the respective coaching staffs in Manitoba and Chicago took with Schroeder and Gillis' comments about developing Schroeder's all around game, it's safe to say he's been carefully and properly developed.

What's been encouraging about Schroeder is his defensive ability, consistent effort and work in the tough areas.

On the game's first goal he outmuscled Smid and held his ground against Potter behind the net, shuffling the puck towards Hansen to take it to the side of the net.

It may not be saying all that much but Smid and Potter are two of Edmonton's most physical D-men and both have size. It's encouraging to see Schroeder do well in those types of battles.

What players like Parise, St. Louis and Gionta have in common is their strength and relentlessness. If Schroeder can continue to get stronger and more effective in the tough areas he will be a solid NHL player.

I'm not sure when the offense will come but he makes good passes, has good vision, and even though we haven't seen his shot much, Schroeder has a very heavy slap shot with quick release and he can pick corners with his wrist shot.

If he can put it all together he will be everything everyone wanted Hodgson to be but quicker and stronger.

dbr wrote:I've seen some posters elsewhere make the claim that Schroeder is playing a drastically simplified game right now and that it's possible he's going to have to get more comfortable (and solidify a roster spot) in the NHL before he starts taking chances with the puck that would allow him to better display much high end skill.

I haven't Schroeder play outside of the last handful of games and another handful of Wolves games, so I''m not familiar with how he 'usually' plays.

Although, I definitely think you could characterize his game right now as being simple, but that could just as easily be direction from this coaching staff, which preaches a solid two-way game before offensive skill. I could see AV sitting down with Schroeder at the beginning of the year and telling him that if he wants to stick on his team, he'll need to take care of the defensive end of the game above anything else.